Authority for "Wiretapping"

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

The Federal Government as established by the Constitution consists of three equal branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.

Many on this Forum have complained about the NSA listening to terrorist electronic transmissions. Can some of you people tell me where the Constitution gives Congress the authority to grant or deny the Executive the right to listen to these terrorist electronic transmissions?

ExpandCollapse

Banned

The question? All I saw was attempt at doublespeak sorry. Illegal domestic spying and listening to terrorist electronic transmissions are two different animals. The issue is domestic spying. Does the constitution allow for domestic spying? No!

As I recall you have been one of the worst Bush Bashers or Bush Haters, depending on your psyche, on this Forum.

Click to expand...

That's only because he's in office OR, I'm an equal oportunity basher. You just wait till Hillary is installed in the oval office. Besides Bush Jr. is a globalist minion same as Clinton and Bush Sr.

If I'm guilty of bashing anyone OR, it's the globalists and their minions. George Bush just happens to be one of them. It isn't like I single him out because he's a republican.

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Can some of you people tell me where the Constitution gives Congress the authority to grant or deny the Executive the right to listen to these terrorist electronic transmissions?

Click to expand...

Well, that is hard to do as your argument is wrong from the outset. This has nothing to do with the Legislative branch. This is an issue that deals with the Bill of Rights.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

The question? All I saw was attempt at doublespeak sorry. Illegal domestic spying and listening to terrorist electronic transmissions are two different animals. The issue is domestic spying. Does the constitution allow for domestic spying? No!

As I recall you have been one of the worst Bush Bashers or Bush Haters, depending on your psyche, on this Forum.

Click to expand...

That's only because he's in office OR, I'm an equal oportunity basher. You just wait till Hillary is installed in the oval office. Besides Bush Jr. is a globalist minion same as Clinton and Bush Sr.

If I'm guilty of bashing anyone OR, it's the globalists and their minions. George Bush just happens to be one of them. It isn't like I single him out because he's a republican. </font>[/QUOTE]poncho

You state: "All I saw was attempt at doublespeak sorry. "

I repeat the OP so you can identify the doublespeak.

"The Federal Government as established by the Constitution consists of three equal branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.

Many on this Forum have complained about the NSA listening to terrorist electronic transmissions. Can some of you people tell me where the Constitution gives Congress the authority to grant or deny the Executive the right to listen to these terrorist electronic transmissions?"

It is obvious that you read what you choose and twist it so you can bash Bush. Everyone on this Forum knows your sentiments. It isn't necessary to take every opportunity to bash Bush. Just answer the simple question I asked, if you can.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
Can some of you people tell me where the Constitution gives Congress the authority to grant or deny the Executive the right to listen to these terrorist electronic transmissions?

Click to expand...

Well, that is hard to do as your argument is wrong from the outset. This has nothing to do with the Legislative branch. This is an issue that deals with the Bill of Rights.

Nice try, though........

BiR </font>[/QUOTE]The Bush haters on this Forum have stated that he should have gone to Congress for authority or have raised the issue of the FISA court created by Congress. Just answer the question if you can. It is really quite simple.

The question? All I saw was attempt at doublespeak sorry. Illegal domestic spying and listening to terrorist electronic transmissions are two different animals. The issue is domestic spying. Does the constitution allow for domestic spying? No!

As I recall you have been one of the worst Bush Bashers or Bush Haters, depending on your psyche, on this Forum.

Click to expand...

That's only because he's in office OR, I'm an equal oportunity basher. You just wait till Hillary is installed in the oval office. Besides Bush Jr. is a globalist minion same as Clinton and Bush Sr.

If I'm guilty of bashing anyone OR, it's the globalists and their minions. George Bush just happens to be one of them. It isn't like I single him out because he's a republican. </font>[/QUOTE]poncho

You state: "All I saw was attempt at doublespeak sorry. "

I repeat the OP so you can identify the doublespeak.

"The Federal Government as established by the Constitution consists of three equal branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.

Many on this Forum have complained about the NSA listening to terrorist electronic transmissions. Can some of you people tell me where the Constitution gives Congress the authority to grant or deny the Executive the right to listen to these terrorist electronic transmissions?"

It is obvious that you read what you choose and twist it so you can bash Bush. Everyone on this Forum knows your sentiments. It isn't necessary to take every opportunity to bash Bush. Just answer the simple question I asked, if you can.</font>[/QUOTE]You are right OR. The double speak or more accurate newspeak was already done for you by the globalist spin machine. I see now that you weren't knowingly engaging in propaganda. You were just uh, catapulting the ready made propaganda. Sorry for the confusion. I got a case of ismitis after defining globalism on another thread. Think you can ever forgive this poor sinner?

By changing the words, from domestic surveillance to terrorist surveillance they've made it sound like Bush is looking out for people instead of looking into peoples mail. It's an old trick.

The fourth amendment says.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Click to expand...

Probable cause. Huh? Wonder if NSA expert General Hayen knows that is in the fourth amendment?

Well, looks like either the expert is ignorant of the law or he's the clumsiest liar the PTB could find to cover for "the boss".

This isn't about presidential powers it's about the bill of rights. The president could have gotten a rubberstamp warrant 72 hours after any such surveillance. Seems simple enough, do your spying get a retroactive rubberstamp warrant 72 hours later. Unless you are engaged in something questionable or illegal getting such a warrant should be relatively easy.

The Bush haters on this Forum have stated that he should have gone to Congress for authority or have raised the issue of the FISA court created by Congress. Just answer the question if you can. It is really quite simple.

Click to expand...

You still don't get it do you? This isn't about Bush or Clinton or liberals or conservatives or democrats or republicans. This is about liberty vs slavery a contsituional repbulic vs a global dictatorship. Partisan politics are usless in this debate, they are unproductive and highly stage managed for your entertainment and a total waste of time. Im everso ho.

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

Originally posted by OldRegular:
The Bush haters on this Forum have stated that he should have gone to Congress for authority or have raised the issue of the FISA court created by Congress. Just answer the question if you can. It is really quite simple

Click to expand...

OldRegular, your MO is getting tiresome.
If you can offer ANYTHING that supports the straw man you are attempting to tear down, then by all means share it with us. But, as usual, you offer absolutely nothing to support your claim, and demand that someone support the assertion that is wholly and completely inaccurate. Moreover, it demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the actual subject at hand.

The three mouseketeers: poncho, BIR, and Kiffen. A predictable trio. Neither can answer the question. if it wern't so .

Click to expand...

As usual, abject fatuity, nothing more.
It is not up to me to support the simplistic straw man you have offered, especially given the fact that I have already posted that it involves the Bill of Rights, not the Legislative branch. As it was you who offered that pathetic straw man, I can only assume that you have an elementary knowledge of the Constitution.

I also find it interesting that you refer to everyone who dissents as "Bush Haters." Those same people might accuse you of hero worship. Personally, I wouldn't know, as I am in neither category.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

I support the position that Old Regular has taken. I don't agree with Poncho, Baptist in Richmond, or Kiffen on this issue.

Forth Amendment of the US Constitution The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Click to expand...

At first reading a person could conclude that warrants are always required prior to search or seizure. But that's not at all the case. There are many exceptions to that requirement long recognized by our Courts - the branch responsible for holding the government to the Constitution - as well as by the Legislative and Executive branches. A few key words in the amendment are "to be secure" and "unreasonable". As with all other rights none are absolute and must be balanced against other rights and duties of government.

It's long be recognized that in a state of emergency the government can temporarily suspend numerous individual rights in the interest of general public safety and to re-establish order. It's long be recognized that spying upon suspected enemies of the nation to prevent their execution of attacks upon the citizens of the nation is, in fact, not only a right but a duty of the government. It has long been recognized that law enforcement officers do not need a warrant to pursue and arrest a person who been observed committing a crime. It's long been recognized that a person can be searched and their immediately accessible property can be searched without a warrant when detained or arrested. It's long been recognized that the rights of enemy combatants are not protected by the forth amendment. Etc.

The fact is that the President, as the chief executive officer of the nation, has a right and a duty to take whatever actions are necessary to protect and defend the nation against possible enemy attacks in a timely manner. Just as a police officer can immediately pursue a suspect who's believed to have just committed a crime, so can an NSA security agent immediately monitor a call reasonably believed to involve enemies of the nation. Neither is subject to due process of warrants as described in the forth amendment.

That's exactly what's being done by intercepting the international calls of known terrorist agents such that any actions they are planning can hopefully be uncovered. These potential acts are not criminal acts - they are acts of war. As such they are subject to a completely different criteria of law than suspected violations of civil or criminal law. Let's not confuse these matters and tie our hands in a manner never intended by those who wrote the Bill of Rights. We don't need to work our laws to the benefit of our enemies.

I contend that the President does not need a warrant to pursue these enemies whether outside or inside the United States. There is, of course, a danger in this because if this power is misused the result could be domestic surveillance in the name of preventing enemy attacks when in fact it is not. That's why the President does need to report to Congress - in confidence and to a limited committee thereof - on what's being done and why. The responsibility of Congress is to keep these programs in proper check but also to keep secret that which needs to be secret. Is there anyone left who can keep a secret these days?

ExpandCollapse

Banned

Originally posted by Dragoon68: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Forth Amendment of the US Constitution The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Click to expand...

At first reading a person could conclude that warrants are always required prior to search or seizure. But that's not at all the case. There are many exceptions to that requirement long recognized by our Courts - the branch responsible for holding the government to the Constitution - as well as by the Legislative and Executive branches. A few key words in the amendment are "to be secure" and "unreasonable". As with all other rights none are absolute and must be balanced against other rights and duties of government. </font>[/QUOTE]This is one of the problems that strict constructionists run into - sometimes rights conflict with one another.

It's long be recognized that in a state of emergency the government can temporarily suspend numerous individual rights in the interest of general public safety and to re-establish order. It's long be recognized that spying upon suspected enemies of the nation to prevent their execution of attacks upon the citizens of the nation is, in fact, not only a right but a duty of the government. It has long been recognized that law enforcement officers do not need a warrant to pursue and arrest a person who been observed committing a crime. It's long been recognized that a person can be searched and their immediately accessible property can be searched without a warrant when detained or arrested. It's long been recognized that the rights of enemy combatants are not protected by the forth amendment. Etc.

Click to expand...

Only if you consider since the end of 2001 to be a long time.

The fact is that the President, as the chief executive officer of the nation, has a right and a duty to take whatever actions are necessary to protect and defend the nation against possible enemy attacks in a timely manner. Just as a police officer can immediately pursue a suspect who's believed to have just committed a crime, so can an NSA security agent immediately monitor a call reasonably believed to involve enemies of the nation. Neither is subject to due process of warrants as described in the forth amendment.

That's exactly what's being done by intercepting the international calls of known terrorist agents such that any actions they are planning can hopefully be uncovered. These potential acts are not criminal acts - they are acts of war. As such they are subject to a completely different criteria of law than suspected violations of civil or criminal law. Let's not confuse these matters and tie our hands in a manner never intended by those who wrote the Bill of Rights. We don't need to work our laws to the benefit of our enemies.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but what about the Quakers?

Is there anyone left who can keep a secret these days?

Click to expand...

That's a conundrum.

It's a pleasure to read such a thoughtful & well-reasoned argument, even if I may not accept it in its entirety.

ExpandCollapse

Banned

Actually C4K Bush did it through disposable lackeys, in that way the faithful can say Brownie or Chertoff did it and go on worshiping I mean defending Bush's tyranny. And lets remember every time they do something like this they automatically claim ignorance or ineptitude and of course ask for more funding to fix the "problem".

And some people like General Hayden actually show us their ineptitude on mainstream television. Probable cause isn't in the 4th amendment?

Does this guy actually believe this? I doubt it very much. As I see it, this is an attempt to confuse the people and claim that the president doesn't need a warrant for "reasonable searches" define reasonable, then tell me why the founders wrote the fourth amendment the way they did.

no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,

Click to expand...

In other words if you don't have probable cause don't ask for a warrant. Bush didn't ask for a warrant that he could have easily gotten 72 hours after the fact. Did he have probable cause?

supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Click to expand...

How can one describe the particular place to be searched or the things to be seized in this case the whole of America and Americans?

Quick Navigation

Support us!

The management of Baptist Board works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best design, and all the other bells and whistles that goes into a forum our size.Your support is much appreciated!